ca. 1588 Portrait of Queen Elizabeth, a variation of the Armada portrait, by George Gower (Philip Mould)

This is a variation of the "Armada" portrait of Queen Elizabeth of England.

Philip Mould has an excellent article about this portrait and portraits of Queen Elizabeth in general, parts of which are excerpted here, at this location.

"...The flamboyant image of Elizabeth seen here has become one of the most
successful sovereign statements in English history. The contrast with
Elizabeth’s earlier portraiture is striking. In the first portrait of
her as Queen, the ‘Clopton’ portrait of 1558 [Private Collection,
formerly Philip Mould Ltd], Elizabeth is shown with conspicuous piety.
She wears a relatively simple black dress, and holds a religious book
in her hand. This portrayal accords well with what we know to be
Elizabeth’s virtuous, even frugal youthful character.

But as her reign progressed Elizabeth’s portraiture became increasingly
outré. Each portrait outdid the last with ever more elaborate changes
in costume, pose, composition and jewelry, a progression matched by
Elizabeth’s increasing addiction to expensive jewels. The process
culminates in the over-indulgent, oversized, almost absurd example of
the ‘Ditchley’ portrait [National Portrait Gallery], in which Elizabeth
is shown full length, bestriding the earth, as bolts of lighting strike
dramatically through the sky behind her. Her face is small, aged, even
ugly, and overwhelmed by the rest of the painting. Elizabeth the person
is subsumed by Elizabeth the icon...

And this was precisely the intention. They key to understanding
Elizabeth’s portraiture lies in a recognition of her political
vulnerability. Female monarchs in the sixteenth century were rare
enough. Unmarried female monarchs were unheard of. Her image,
therefore, could not stress traditional female charms; beauty, grace,
fertility. In fact, it had to stress the opposite. From the late 1570s
onwards, when it became clear that she would not marry, Elizabeth was
effectively de-sexed. She was portrayed as a virtuous emblem of state,
the Virgin Queen forsaking marriage for the good of the kingdom. It was
therefore not enough for Elizabeth to rely on likeness alone in her
portraiture. She certainly could not be portrayed in the demur, usually
seated, manner of her sister Mary, supported as she was by her marriage
to Philip of Spain. And, of course, Elizabeth was unable to rely on
sheer physical presence in her portraits, as her father (had) done. Thus her
portraits came to rely on bejewelled and bulky costumes – ‘Gloriana’ –
for the projection of majesty. The production of Elizabeth’s portraits followed well established
practices. A standardized face ‘mask’ was used, as has been the case in
this example. Face masks not only saved time, but made up for the
impossibility of painting the Queen from life for each new commission.
Masks were also used to adhere to the fairly stringent, if unofficial,
rules surrounding the production of the Queen’s image. She preferred,
for example, to have no shadows across her face, and hence the stark,
bright appearance of her features. The pose and costume would then have
been painted with greater artistic freedom. Subtle changes would have
been introduced in each portrait, usually in the accessories such as
the fan in this example, so that the dependence on standard facial
types did not give rise to identical portraits of the Queen. It appears
to have been accepted that no two portraits of the Queen should be
identical..."

This is a knockoff of the Armada portrait. The elaboate geometric patterns on her silk false sleeves and the sheer bulk of those puffed sleeves are a point of interest. Her tiny waist is another point of interest. She used a vast number of pearls, and bows, to trim her gown and edge her headdress. Her sleeves appear to support hanging sleeves, barely visible in back.